October 12, 2012

Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy reports (after his earlier post "Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security," which I discussed at length earlier this morning). Rogin interviewed Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications Ben Rhodes, asking him "whether Biden was speaking for the entire Obama administration, including the State Department." What Biden said was: "We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there."

Rhodes said that Biden speaks only for himself and the president and neither of them knew about the requests at the time.

The State Department security officials who testified before House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa's panel Wednesday never said they had made their requests to the president, Rhodes pointed out. That would be natural because the State Department is responsible for diplomatic security, not the White House, he said. Rhodes also pointed out that the officials were requesting more security in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

So here's the harmonization that is supposed to save Biden from the charge of lying. When Biden said there would be an investigation into the security lapses and Raddatz (the moderator) interjected "And they wanted more security there," Biden said:

Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view.

That's not a lie because Biden was only talking about himself and President Obama. "We" means just Obama and Biden, per Rhodes. But then what do we make of the line "we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew"? And "That was the assessment"? If Biden knows now that wasn't the assessment and he and the President were not told what the intelligence community knew, he can't truthfully assert that "we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew"... unless you lay a whole lot of weight on the words I just boldfaced. That is, he was cleverly refraining from saying that the intelligence community told us what they knew. We heard what they told us they knew... and they were not telling the truth. They knew other things, but they didn't tell us. But what they told us, they told us they knew.

NOTE: There's another out: the scope of the term "intelligence community."

AND: Another out stresses the word "there" in Biden's "Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security there." As Rhodes points out: the requests were for more security in Tripoli and the attack occured in Benghazi.

IN THE COMMENTS: Shouting Thomas said:

Uh... yeah... But, how does that explain the prompt production of the "offensive" video as the reason for the attacks?

Here's my theory. It was 9/11, the last 9/11 before the election, and Obama wanted to do something 9/11-y. His people dug up this offensive video on YouTube for Obama to talk about in some eloquent mishmash that would somehow make him sound like a leader who has made a wonderful connection to the Muslim world. Then the al Qaeda attack occurred in Libya, taking over the 9/11 spotlight, interfering with Obama's planned message, and even tainting his legend as The Man Who Shot Bin Laden. A decision was made to absorb the Libya attack into the planned 9/11 story. It was a bad decision, but they doubled down on it anyway. The election was so close, and the truth could be sorted out later.

Obama didn't do anything wrong, see, it was just the people working for him who screwed up. Sure he appointed them, but they had to be confirmed by the Senate. So, really, the Senate is at least as much to blame as he is.

So why were they not told? I can see that before the fact this request would not have reached the President and Vice President. But after the fact a curious and engaged chief executive would have learned this right away. But Obama was not curious and engaged. Nor was Biden. Willful blindness is not a defense.

By saying this Biden has simultaneously thrown the State Dept. and the CIA under the bus. Hillary has to be seething. You have to wonder if the CIA is preparing a slew of damaging leaks against Obama-Biden.

But the question that NOBODY is asking is "was the potential danger to our embassy and consulate in Libya covered in any of the daily intelligence briefings that Obama passed up to go golfing or to party with Sarah Jessica Parker?"

The fury with which Stephanie Cutler filibustered on Fox News, in an effort to avoid answering any direct question about the Benghazi attack suggests to me that the Obama admin is in even deeper shit here than we think.

"The State Department security officials who testified before House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa's panel Wednesday never said they had made their requests to the president, Rhodes pointed out. That would be natural because the State Department is responsible for diplomatic security, not the White House, he said."

I bet they give Hillary a pillow as they throw her under the bus. Rank does have its privileges.

But the question that NOBODY is asking is "was the potential danger to our embassy and consulate in Libya covered in any of the daily intelligence briefings that Obama passed up to go golfing or to party ..."

No matter, he didn't attend them, or IMO, read them either. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

Obama actually expects his sundry Czars and advisors, none elected, to handle literally everything, without exception. No stain is to be wrought upon the royal ermine.

I don't think "the intelligence community" is going to back Obama or Biden on this. According to Biden, the "intelligence community" told the President that the murder of the ambassador arose from a protest of a You Tube video. And then "the intelligence community" changed their assessment later on. They're not going to take the fall here.

IIRC, Ambassador Stephens requested more security. He wasn't stationed in Tripoli, but Benghazi. I'm not going to spend the time to look it up, but I can't remember any reported conversations eminating from Tripoli regarding security. One or two more weeks of this and it will be a full blown clusterfuck. If it isn't already.

Like the convenient BLS numbers the other day which didn't exclude (they just didn't INclude) a "large state" (California).

Madness.

But, hey, do feel free to keep calling attention to the lies by relying on tortured semantics and pathetic fantasies featuring the most Competent Intelligent Administration Ever that doesn't have the first clue about anything.

Bill Clinton has got these guys so tied up right now. You can just imagine Obama and Biden trying to figure out just how to throw Hillary under that bus but they know that if they did that ole Bill would tear down their entire administration. I said years ago that the Clinton's and their subordinates were sucking all the air out of the Democratic party, leaving it weak, and sure enough that's what happened.

1. This administration ignored/refused repeated requests for additional security coming from multiple sources including the ambassador himself, the head of his security detail and the chief security officer in Libya. This at the same time that the administration was spending millions at other embassies for such trivial (but ideologically important) things like installing charging stations for Chevy Volts purchased by tax dollars. This is a major scandal all on its own.

2. When the attack occurred the administration used it as an opportunity to harass a law-abiding US Citizen exercising his First Amendment rights and lied to the world about what happened, event to the point of sending out our UN ambassador to prevaricate boldly on national TV talk shows. Obama was still promoting this lie when he gave his UN speech where he attacked "those who would slander and insult Islam." Hillary repeated the lie as she stood by the dead body of Chris Stevens. To call this shameless would be the understatement of the millennium.

3. The administration has, to this day, over FIVE WEEKS LATER still done NOTHING about the attack. Nothing. The rest of the world is watching as the US has allowed the assassination of one of their ambassadors and seen this administration take NO SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE to the attack. All they've seen is lies and misdirection as Obama desperately tries to manage his campaign instead of run this country.

But as I've said for years. There is no difference between the Obama Campaign and the Obama White House. They are now, and have always been, one and the same.

It is doubtful that Biden is lying about it. Such a coverup and deception would make no sense and would be highly risky.

It is simply damning that they did not know. It's their job to know. This is a critical part of the world, and the ambassador is not merely a minor civil functionary or a front-line soldier. An ambassador is a personal representative of our government and our executive. It is the responsibility of the president to ensure that an ambassador is properly secured.

With regard to any claims of budget cuts -- if the executive could not afford to have a secure embassy there, then they should not have had an embassy there. The president cannot control how much money congress allocates, but he has full control over where he sends ambassadors, troops and other agents of the government. He is responsible for their safety and the success of the missions he assigns to them.

Nobody could have reasonably expected a United States diplomatic site in a Muslim country in the Middle East with roving bands of heavily armed partisans and little central authority might need extra security on SEPTEMBER 11.

The question is whether that consulate should have been open at all. State is covering itself by saying that the attack was unprecedented. Modestly increased security would not, in their view, have made a difference.

Do we have unprotected missions in Alexandria? In Iraq cities outside Bagdhad? In the Sudan? (Are we even in the Sudan?)

Everyone in government keeps saying that even if Iran gathers up enough enriched Uranium 235 they still don't have a device to use it in...yada yada.

Ignorance is unlimited. This administration is proof.

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima (Little Boy) was a "gun barrel" type of bomb ...AND it had never been tested before it was dropped, unlike the bomb for Nagasaki (Fat Man), tested in the Trinity Tests.

The basic device for a gun barrel nuclear device/bomb can be made by almost anyone, and can be set up in a boat, car, or ordinary rocket. It was so simple, even in 1945, that they didn't bother to test it.

In fact, Corker explained that the U.S. government had information for some time about the internal security breakdown in Libya. He noted that Foreign Relations Committee had hearings in which the Libyan security situation was referenced. But the administration, Corker believes, still clung to the story that Libya was doing just fine. He said, “That narrative is the reason you are seeing the administration acting the way it is.”

David said ... The whole thing was not thought through from the get go.

IMO, yes it was, the weakness was intentional to demonstrate our "re-set" policies ... this administration just does not care who dies for them, or where.

As others have mentioned, we have USMC guards in Vienna, Austria, Secret Service guards for an unelected Presidential advisor, in Washington DC, but we've got no security for Libya after a rebellion, and withdrew what little we had initially.

The nobody know nuttin' meme is the biggest lie yet. Even now, as we speak, somebody somewhere in government is saying: "See, Ambassador's Stevens death proves we aren't aggressive, that we're kinder/gentler ...he died for our cause."

Well, that would be par for the course with Team O -- focus on finding a "way out" by blaming someone else. Unfortunately for them, the designated fall guys don't seem overly interested in taking the fall. State Dept lifers are already pushing back hard, and the intel guys won't be far behind. And I think it is beyond parody if their defense will turn into a version of "the meaning of 'is'".

Team O hasn't learned that, when you're in a deep hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. Well, it looks like they've finally found a shovel ready project that they believe in.

Regarding Iranian nukes, I really wish Ryan had pointed out last night that the same people that are supposed to know about Iranian nukes are the ones that colossally failed to forsee when Pakistan tested theirs in 1998.

J Scott said...Regarding Iranian nukes, I really wish Ryan had pointed out last night that the same people that are supposed to know about Iranian nukes are the ones that colossally failed to forsee when Pakistan tested theirs in 1998.

And the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the Berlin Wall coming down and the Soviet Union coming apart.

The Intelligence Community is very big, consisting of a bunch of TLAs (Three Letter Acronyns such as CIA, NSA, DIA, NGA, etc.). With so many agencies, they're big on reaching a consensus for everything. The consensus tends to be the lowest common demoninator for what each TLA believes. As a result, they tend to miss a lot of important stuff.

Also, even if it is true that no one told Obama and Biden---given the events in the Middle East, and Libya in particular, you would think they would have(or at least our Commander in Chief would have) taken it upon themselves to inquire asked the diplomatic posts in Libya, and whether they were adequately protected. Shouldn't Obama have at least been concerned about that?

We have not heard from Hillary Clinton since the hearings but I cannot imagine Ms. Clinton will take the blame. I think the fiasco will be blamed entirely on Charlene Lamb and possibly Patrick Kennedy. If Ms. Lamb took it entirely on her own authority to deny the repeated requests for more security then she is very vulnerable.

She looked very worried during the hearings, even at times positively frightened. Perhaps she was realizing for the first time just how much trouble she is in.

I believe that in denying the requests that Lamb was probably only doing what she thought was her superiors' wishes but if she doesn't have some saved memos or emails from higher-ups specifically forbidding her from providing the requested security she is toast.

Regarding Iranian nukes, I really wish Ryan had pointed out last night that the same people that are supposed to know about Iranian nukes are the ones that colossally failed to foresee when Pakistan tested theirs in 1998.

In fact our intelligence agencies have NEVER been able to predict nuclear capability. Their score is a perfect zero. Starting way back with the Soviet Union and extending though ALL the governments that have since nuked up(China, Pakistan, India, Israel, France, UK, N. Korea, etc.) the US intelligence community has been surprised by events each time.

The 3:00AM call came, Obama and Hillary didn't pick up. Obama according to reports was briefed on the Benghazi attack and went to bed without knowing the ambassador's whereabouts. He had to get his sleep for a meeting of national importance in Las Vegas the next day. But, did Hillary not pick up? At State and the intelligence community they watched the attacks real time on satellite. Who decided to lie about the protest turning to attack. Did Hillary mislead Obama or did Obama get Hillary to lie?

McTriumph said...The 3:00AM call came, Obama and Hillary didn't pick up. Obama according to reports was briefed on the Benghazi attack and went to bed without knowing the ambassador's whereabouts. He had to get his sleep for a meeting of national importance in Las Vegas the next day.

If you've ever seen those "Surviving The Cut" documentaries where they take you through the various elite schools (Ranger, SF, Night Stalker), the instructors pound home to the men they always have to be aware of what's going on - always know how many men made it across the road; it's not the responsibility of the platoon sergeant or the squad leaders - it's that of the man in charge.

Joe's answer proves he's not fit for the job and neither is Commandante Zero.

So either -The administration has lost control of the State Dept., orThe State Department doesn't trust the administration, orThe administration is telling a bald-faced lie, orThe administration is throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus.

Obama didn't do anything wrong, see, it was just the people working for him who screwed up. Sure he appointed them, but they had to be confirmed by the Senate. So, really, the Senate is at least as much to blame as he is.

We hired them, Obama and Biden, to run the government, not to fly around in their private jets, use their private helicopters, have their own band, with own tribute song, just to play golf a lot with Hollywood celebrities. And, they are essentially admitting that they have not done the basic function of their jobs, but want to get another 4 years of benefits.

I think the obvious retort to that is that we need to give some people a chance at the job, who seem more determined to perform the duties and accept the responsibilities of the job, than merely enjoy the benefit of the job.

That said, the other problem with this is that the libs/Dems seem to believe that government is the solution to most of our problems - yet seem incapable of running the government that they have now. Do they seriously think that they would do a better job managing an even bigger government?

The basis for the lie that the Benghazi attack was a protest demonstration over a video that got out of control was a series of intercepted communications between al Qaeda and the local militants. One of the communications references the protests in Cairo. Hence the basis for the lie about a protest in Benghazi. The intercepted communications show that al Qaeda staged the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

The Obama Administration, including OBumble and OBlamer, knew at the time they were blaming the video that al Qaeda staged the terrorist attack in Benghazi. They knew and they lied about it, for political gain, so they could claim to be keeping America safe.

So when Biden (and presumably the President) answer questions and make statements that begin with "we," they don't mean their administration, and all those who will help them carry out their stated policies, they only mean those two people?

"His people dug up this offensive video on YouTube for Obama to talk about in some eloquent mishmash that would somehow make him sound like a leader who has made a wonderful connection to the Muslim world."

Wrong.

Obama and HRC had made promises to Erdogan, the OIC and various members of the muslim bortherhood pursuant to the implementation of Res. 16/18 to publically "shame" those who were critical of islam (amd if you don't think this is a huge deal to those guys, you have no idea what motivates them). Choosing this occassion to display the administration's "outrage" at an islamophobic copt had the added benefit of (apparently) causally related riots, mahem, property damage and murder as the "outcome" of the defamatory speech. I remember seeing various TV announcing piling abuse on the poor sap because of all the alleged "problems' he had caused with his "hateful speech."

"There's no such thing as an "Administration." Barry and Joe are just two normal dudes who happen to hang out in a big white house in the middle of Washington. They don't know nuthin' bout this Libya stuff."

A decision was made to absorb the Libya attack into the planned 9/11 story. It was a bad decision, but they doubled down on it anyway. The election was so close, and the truth could be sorted out later.

...the libs/Dems seem to believe that government is the solution to most of our problems - yet seem incapable of running the government that they have now. Do they seriously think that they would do a better job managing an even bigger government?

Astounding as it may seem to you, Bruce, the answer is that the libs/Dems cannot grasp the reality that they are bungling the management of our present government. One must have faith!

Reports are that Bill Clinton is seeking legal advice on how Hillary should handle being thrown under the bus. The problem is, what if the House calls on her to produce memos. Should she fall on her sword for Obama, thus destroying her political future. Obama has her cornered, If she dumps on Obama and he loses the election the rank and file Dem base will punish her in 2016. Serves the Clintons right for selling out to help the Black Nixon get elected in 2008.

About the movie- during the day, before Stevens was killed, the Cairo embassy was being harassed by someone about the movie.

That's when the denounced the movie. They (the Cairo embassy) also said they worked very hard to tell people Islam is a great religion.

I don't know, there have just been so many weird things about Obama and Islam- his NASA chief saying his mission was to make Muslims recall what a big part of science they've always been, Obama saying the future must not belong to those who blaspheme the prophet.I don't know what his angle is. It wouldn't surprise me if he'd ignored Libya's hardships, wanted to use it as a showpiece for his foreign policy, and truly believed a movie would be blasphemous enough to bring about such a result.He is maybe just not that interested in the real world.

(remember, this is a guy who tried to tell Africans that AlQaeda is a racist organization as a method to dissuade them from joining)

The Clintons are in no trouble. No trouble at all. If there are two people in this country, exposed to the media, who will lie, and lie right to the face of the nation without any remorse at all, it's these two.

Susan Rice? No, not her either, she's black. Maybe some underling, but nobody else. I think that they'll do what they've done so far, and put off/change direction until the election is over.

But we are not talking security for Luxemberg. This is Libya for crying out loud.

This is a country into which Obama personally stuck his foot with no cover from Congress. Having done so, its importance (if only to his reelection) is fourteen orders of magnitude greater than the PX inventory example you gave. OK, can we agree on that?

That said, he may not be making the individual decisions, but by god if I were him, I'd surely have a raft of administration proticals written down, promulgated, and in place for people to follow to make sure that events there would not come back to bite me.

That he allowed State to treat Libya as if it were Luxemburg is ON HIM.

CJWPerfect analysis, there are thousands of Marines all over the world protecting embassies like in Barbados. As important as Libya is to Obama's M E foreign policy, he gives Valerie Jarrett more protection than Ambassador Stevens.

how about the fact that they purposely left the Ambassador with nearly no security..

He had no American security it was all Libyan militas , in his own diary the Ambassador was worried about his lack of security, the State department twice denied extra secriuty, and in August removed the last of the Special forces security .... the 2 former special ops weren't his protection , they came from cross town heard the American Ambassador was under threat and ran to help, the other American who died was a computer specialist ...

Next it wasn't just Libya they had protesters in 30 countries overtaking 10 American Embassies ... And many rioters were screaming Obama there are 1billion Osma's... Nothing to do with the democrats spiking the ball for the last year.

And all this just after Obama was going to run as the foreign policy President.... As if ignoring all the world problems and leading from behind( his ass) is a foreign policy doctrine.

fast & furious

.... Now Benghazi .... Both gross negligence and incompetence... That has lead to the deaths of Ameticans Then the cover ups..... Watergate had no dead bodies... But unfortunately for Nixon a R behind his name.

The administration knew from the beginning it was a planned al-Qaeda attack. They did not want an al-Qaeda attack on the anniversary of 9-11 especially not after the president had all but declared the terrorist organization defeated.

At the same time, elements unfriendly to the US (which covers just about everybody in the area) wanted to gin up some Muslim protests to coincide with the 9-11 anniversary and incited the rabble by "releasing" a video that had been available on YouTube for months.

The administration seized on the demonstrations (especially those in Egypt where our embassy was breached) to forestall as long as possible discussion of (a) an al-Qaeda terrorist attack resulting in the assassination of our ambassador and three others and (b) the lax security measures that allowed such an attack to succeed.

Obama went over to State on 9-12 to personally let Hillary know that he was not taking the fall for this and if need be, she'd be tossed under the bus. Hillary agreed to go with the "offensive, disgusting video" obfuscation. "Intelligence" was set up to be the fall guy and the president's minions were dispatched.

Now it's all unraveling and Obama has to choose between bumbling ineptitude and willful ignorance. And what of Miz Hillary? Is there an underbus in her future or is she preparing a little coup of her own?

“Recent documents unearth in Benghazi tell a story of an even greater sin committed by the Obama administration than incompetence. These newly discovered documents suggest that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on a mission to track and confiscate weapons that the administration had put in the hands of Al Queda when they thought they were arming the Libyan rebels.

So the Obama administration is now pleading ignorance for the security failures in Benghazi and the discredited malarkey about the YouTube video.

Given this claim of ignorance, one has to wonder if the scope of Obama's ignorance is confined to what happened in Libya, or whether his ignorance encompasses every other aspect of foreign policy and national security.